Posted tagged ‘Leftists’

Satire | Make Trump Shut Up. It’s Patriotic!

March 18, 2016

Make Trump Shut Up. It’s Patriotic! Dan Miller’s Blog, March 18, 2016

(The views expressed in this article (aside from those espoused by my imaginary guest author, with whom no rational person agrees) are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

trump-assault

Editor’s note: This is a guest post by my (imaginary) guest author, the Very Honorable Ima Librul, Senator from the great State of Confusion Utopia. He is a founding member of Climate Change Causes Everything Bad, a charter member of President Obama’s Go For it Team, a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Chairman of the Meretricious Relations Subcommittee. He is also justly proud of his expertise in the care and breeding of green unicorns, for which his Save the Unicorns Foundation has received substantial Federal grants. We are honored to have a post of this caliber by a quintessential Librul such as the Senator. Without further delay, here is the Senator’s article, followed by my own observations. 

As any fool knows, saying things that upset folks is destructive to our peace and tranquility. No patriot would do that. As the Boston Globe observed on March 17th, true patriots can not and should not permit it.

Donald Trump slams protesters at his rallies as “thugs” but, as usual, the unhinged GOP presidential front-runner is dead wrong:

They’re patriots.

. . . .

With Trump nearly sweeping this week’s primaries, those rallies will become more hostile toward anyone pushing against his hideous rhetoric. Yet those patriots will still come, not just because they oppose Trump but for the love of their country which is being shoved toward the abyss. As poet Adrienne Rich wrote in “An Atlas of the Difficult World”:

A patriot is one who wrestles/ for the soul of her country/ as she wrestles for her own being.

Trump has been endorsed by Will Quigg, 48, a grand dragon of the Ku Klux Klan. So has Hillary Clinton, but that’s as different as night is from day; we all know that she is not a racist. The KKK endorsement of Trump shows, beyond dispute, that he is a vile racist. That’s why he despises our President and everything for which we stand.

Trump reminds me of the hateful Britainophobes who mocked Native Americans by wearing their quaint native garb to throw precious tea, violently, into Boston Harbor. For shame!

Trump hatefully complains that Islam is not the religion of peace and that since it is a violent religion Muslims should not be permitted even to visit the United States until it can be determined which are peaceful and which are not. Hogwash! Muslims are just as peaceful as Methodists. They love little children more than Methodists, particularly little girls, and marry them at what Trump probably thinks is too early an age — often at the age of ten. It’s their culture, so there’s nothing wrong with it and we should respect it. Isn’t this a pretty little bride? She looks so happy!

668 (1)

Muslims don’t occupy a country that isn’t theirs like filthy Jews do in Palestine. They don’t try to take over mosques sacred to Islam.

 

 

Palestine, unlike Israel, does not practice apartheid. Although Israel has nukes, Iran recently promised not to develop nuclear weapons. Trump, despite his claims to be a master negotiator, would never have got that deal; Obama, a very modest person, did despite obstructions put in his path by Israel and some Republicans.

Not all Jews are bad, of course: a major Jewish group warned that Trump is dangerous. As noted in the immediately linked article, the warning

came amid an impassioned debate in the American Jewish community around Trump’s plans to address an audience of over 18,000 next Monday at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s annual policy conference.

Who knows what might happen if Trump were to address that group. Might he claim, as he often does, that the peaceful Palestinians, not Jews, are to blame for Israel’s continued occupation of Palestine? Perhaps some of his antisemitic bullies might assault members of the audience. They might bring not only knives but guns as well! Remember, President Obama warned against bringing even knives to a gun fight!

Trump complains that our borders are not “secure.” He is stupid, ignorant and just plays on the fear of other racists. Hillary Clinton knows that the borders are secure.

PHOENIX — The United States has done a “really good job” of securing the border between Arizona and Mexico, Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton said in an exclusive interview Thursday.

“I think we’ve done a really good job securing the border,” she said. “I think that those who say we haven’t are not paying attention to what was done the last 15 years under President (George W.) Bush and President (Barack) Obama.”

Clinton said the federal government has added both border officers and obstructions, while the number of people attempting to cross the border has dropped.

“Immigration from Mexico has dropped considerably,” she said. ”It’s just not happening anymore.”

Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, was speaking just days before a campaign event in Phoenix.

Lies, lies, lies. It’s lies all the way down for Trump

The protestors at Trump rallies do not want to silence him, as some far-right nuts have complained. They only want to make him stop saying things that offend them; there’s a big difference, as any fool knows. Like everyone else with two brain cells, we need our safe spaces and he violates our constitutional rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by refusing to let us have them. Even the music played at Trump rallies is authoritarian and disgusting. That’s why we attend and protest at Trump rallies.

Trump is Hitler. All Republican candidates for president have been Hitlers for many, many years. Hitlerism is the foul soup in which they are conceived, born and raised. It’s high time to throw out the soup and Republicans along with it. Hillary will do that, and more.

*****************

Editor’s comments

 

 

 

As a courtesy to Senator Librul, I inserted all of the links in his article. The presence of supporting links is about the only difference between his screed and those of Democrats and the Republican elite (but I repeat myself) disparaging Trump for stuff he has not done and does not do; for what they claim he is and not for what he is.

It’s high time for us to take America back from those who have been trying to destroy her. She belongs to We the People, not to the Democrat or Publican party bosses. Never forget.

 

 

Obama did not build our nation. Our ancestors did and it’s our inheritance.

 

 

For whom would the pioneers in the video vote were they alive now? Our “leaders” who sit in Washington, D.C., break their promises and take our money to finance their reelection campaigns so they can continue the process? Those who have weakened our nation and made her a second class world power? Those who elevate political correctness and multiculturalism above reality? Those who rewrite our history so that they can condemn it? I don’t think so. Which candidates do you think they would support?

crazed

 

The Israel-Bashing Industry’s “Intellectuals”

March 16, 2016

The Israel-Bashing Industry’s “Intellectuals” Gatestone Institute, Giulio Meotti, March 16, 2016

♦ These novelists hold a deep, uninformed, irrational hatred. Instead of backing the only country that gives full rights to all its citizens, they are instrumental in attacking not only Israel but the Jewish people.

♦ What is notable is that every single time, these most illustrious writers “forget” to say why Israel built those fences, checkpoints and roadblocks in the first place.

♦ Saramago, while he was visiting Ramallah, chose not to see and talk about the Israeli restaurants, malls and hotels turned into carpets of human bodies. The wholesale slaughter of Jews was the only reason Israel had to send tanks and soldiers back into the Palestinian cities after the Oslo Accords. Saramago did not mention the context; he preferred to give credence to a distorted, demonizing vision.

What is the only country about which can be said that its very existence is disputed? Clue: Not Zimbabwe, not Tuvalu, not even overrun Tibet. Which country’s boundaries, bought with blood in wars initiated by others, are challenged by all nations, who now seem determined to destroy it through boycotts, unjust defamation and purported “laws” that are applied to no other nation?

Which country fully respects the rights of women and every kind of ethnic, religious and sexual minorities, notwithstanding that it is condemned at the United Nations for being “the worst violator of women’s rights” — worse than Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Sudan?

Which country provides its own enemy with water, electricity, food and medical treatment? Its military, to avoid enemy civilian casualties, warns its enemy to evacuate buildings before attacking them, and — instead of simply carpet bombing the enemy as all other nations do, including most democracies — sends its own soldiers possibly to die in ground operations?

The country is Israel — the only country that even famous writers, intellectuals and Nobel laureates target, demonize and criminalize.

There was a time when Nobel laureates for Literature, such as the German Heinrich Böll, the French Jean-Paul Sartre and the Italian Eugenio Montale, rushed to denounce injustice. Earlier, in the name of best Europe’s values — justice, freedom and solidarity — they condemned the threats to the State of Israel’s existence.

But today, these novelists hold a deep, uninformed, irrational hatred towards the same place. Instead of backing the only country that gives full rights to all its citizens, they are instrumental in attacking not only Israel but the Jewish people. In Germany, Hitler’s Mein Kampf is the new best-seller. In Europe today, you can even find a great number of books that wipe Israel off the map. And a provincial council near Glasgow, West Dunbartonshire, banned Israeli books from local libraries.

In the chorus of those who speak from journals, poems and novels, there have been a few noble exceptions. The Albanian writer Ismail Kadaré, a Muslim candidate positioned every year to win the Nobel Prize for Literature, turned down a request to boycott the tiny Jewish State. Israel, he says, faces “the threat of disappearance,” and he compared Israel to Albania under Nazi occupation. Also the author of the Harry Potter books, JK Rowling, refused to add her name to the list of Israel’s boycotters.

Their brave, solitary gestures highlight the sluggish, uninquiring conformity of the “intelligentsia’s” campaign to pile unmerited calumnies on Israel.

Worse, supposed “intellectuals” often spout raw anti-Semitism while giving a pass to the truly barbarous people among us. If the Nobel Committee had any decency, it would revoke the prizes it awarded for “Peace” to such “humanitarians” as Fidel Castro and Yasser Arafat. It is painful to watch the Nobel Committee make a fool of itself year after year, and it is painful to watch these so-called intellectuals be so unaware and filled with prejudice against the people who least deserve it.

An Italian writer, Dario Fo, a laureate of the Nobel Prize for Literature, just gave an interview to the newspaper, La Repubblica. Fo, talking about the Jewish patriarch, Moses, said: “Moses was killing women and children because they worshiped idols.” Mr. Fo went on blaming “the Jews’ brutality against those who follow other religions, as it happens today.” Excuse me? Is it the Jews who are burning people alive, drowning them in cages, slitting throats or crucifying anyone for following a different religion?

Mr. Fo’s comparison is as wrong as it is ghastly. It is not the Jews who suicide-bomb Palestinian buses, cafes, wedding halls and discotheques. It is not the Jews who now try to mow down Palestinians with cars or stab them in the street. It is the reverse — and has been for years.

The daily newspaper La Stampa charged Dario Fo with “recycling anti-Semitic stereotypes.” Fo is not new at this. In the 1970s, in one of his theatrical operas, “Resistance: Italian and Palestinian people speak,” the future Nobel Prize laureate compared Nazism to Zionism and the Palestinian fedayeen terrorists to the anti-Fascist partisans.

A few days after the 9/11 attacks, Fo also said that,

“the great speculators wallow in an economy that every year kills tens of millions of people with poverty — so what is 20,000 dead in New York? Regardless of who carried out the massacre, this violence is the legitimate daughter of the culture of violence, hunger and inhumane exploitation.”

Who gave this famous writer the right to defame, earlier, not only Israel’s name but also 9/11’s victims?

Another Nobel prize-winning novelist, Mario Vargas Llosa, as well as the Pulitzer Prize winner Dave Eggers, are among a group of international novelists who will contribute to a book of essays next year about “50 years of Israeli occupation” that will be published by Harper Collins, one of the publishers that wiped Israel off the map.

The book is part of an initiative by Breaking the Silence, a non-governmental organization (NGO) which makes sweeping charges against the Israeli army “based on anonymous and unverifiable hearsay ‘testimonies.'” while refusing to disclose the names of the Israeli soldiers who “testified.” Worse, it is being funded specifically “to incriminate the IDF” (Israel Defense Forces) and, was explicitly directed by European charities to prove that Israel acted improperly. In an article entitled, “Europe to Breaking the Silence: Bring Us As Many Incriminating Testimonies As Possible,” the watchdog group NGO Monitor disclosed that:

Contrary to BtS’ claim that “the contents and opinions in this booklet do not express the position of the funders,” NGO Monitor research reveals that a number of funders made their grants conditional on the NGO obtaining a minimum number of negative “testimonies.” This contradicts BtS’ declarations and thus turns it into an organization that represents its foreign donors’ interest, severely damaging the NGO’s reliability and its ability to analyze complicated combat situations.

Are these “prestigious” writers aware of the organization’s predetermined bias which is going to fund their new book?

There is also, of course, the problem of double standards and hypocrisy. These writers did not decide to put their pen at the service of the Syria’s civil war victims or the Christians and Yazidi who are suffering a genocide in Iraq. No, these writers targeted Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, and its supposed “occupation” — which they fail to disclose was backed by the Palestinians themselves in the Oslo II Accord of 1995, Chapter 3, Article XVII Jurisdiction [1], which in fact turned the Palestinian people into the most protected Arab population in the entire Middle East. Go to Ramallah and Jenin and you will see the difference between how they live compared to the people living in Aleppo, Sana’a and Mosul.

The most prolific novelists in the Israel-Bashing Industry are, sadly, the British. “Sadly,” especially as Iran has within the last month raised the bounty offered on the head of a British citizen, Salman Rushdie, by another $600,000, in addition to the $3 million issued by Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989. That brings the incentive for murdering a novelist to roughly $4 million. About that, the British government has been shamefully silent. The only condemnation so far seems to have come from the Iranian journalist, Amir Taheri, the British journalist, Douglas Murray and from PEN.

Another “intellectual,” John Berger, a Booker Prize winner, called for artists to decline being published by Israeli publishers and to undertake a boycott of the Jewish State. Harold Pinter, the late Nobel Laureate playwright, has gone so far as to declare Israel “the central factor in world unrest,” presumably forgetting about Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, and Sudan. Showing how thin is the line separating criticism and anti-Semitism, Tom Paulin, poet, essayist and academic at Oxford, said Jewish “settlers” in Israel “should be shot dead.” A Scottish National Poet, Liz Lochhead, also joined a group calling for the boycott of Israel.

Dozens of the world’s literary stars, including Nobel laureates in literature such as J. M. Coetzee, Herta Mueller, Orhan Pamuk and the late Irish poet Seamus Heaney, added their names to a petition against Israel’s “occupation’s giant, cruel hand.” What is notable is that every single time, these most illustrious writers “forget” to say why Israel built those fences, checkpoints and roadblocks in the first place.

Donald Trump wants to build a wall with Mexico, the Arab sheikhdoms are closing the border with Oman, Spain built fences to keep out Moroccans, India is walling off Bangladesh, South and North Korea share a fortified border, Cyprus is divided by walls and Belfast is a fenced city of barriers.

But only Israel’s fence — built for defensive, humanitarian reasons, merely not to get blown up — is condemned by the International Court of Justice and receives round-the-clock coverage on CNN and front page stories in the New York Times. Why? Because the security barrier that saves lives was perverted by unjust people into an unjust barrier, with no mention of what happened to Israelis before that fence was put up. To paraphrase attorney Alan Dershowitz: If you made a fair and objective list of all the countries in the world that comply with human rights, from best to worst, Israel would have to be near the top, among the best.

One of the most chilling accusations against Israel has come from a northern European writer, Jostein Gaarder, an ostensible humanitarian, whose book, “Sophie’s World,” was translated into 53 languages, and with 26 million copies sold. Penning an article in the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten, Gaarder wrote:

“If the entire Israeli nation should fall … and part of the population must flee to another Diaspora, then we say: may their surroundings stay calm and show them mercy. Shoot not at the fugitives! Take not aim at them! They are vulnerable now — like snails without shells! … Give the Israeli refugees shelter; give them milk and honey!”

Gaarder envisages the expulsion of the entire Jewish people from their land, and again dependent on European charity — in recent years not exactly a commodity in great supply.

Israel has been humiliated also by a German writer and Nobel Prize for Literature, Günter Grass, who published a poem in several European newspapers, in which he treated Israel as the purveyor of all ills and the instigator of every type of disorder. According to Mr. Grass, it is Israel that threatens Iran with a nuclear genocide, not the reverse.

This sanctimony should not have come from that writer: Grass, in fact, served in Nazi Germany’s armed SS force and defined East Germany’s Communism “a comfortable dictatorship.”

After a visit in the Palestinian Authority’s de facto capital, Ramallah, during the Second Intifada, after there were about 1,500 Jewish dead from terrorism, another winner of Nobel Prize for Literature, José Saramago, stated that the Israeli blockade of Ramallah was “in the spirit of Auschwitz” and “this place is being turned into a concentration camp.” A year later, Saramago commented that the Jewish people no longer deserve “the sympathy for the suffering they went through during the Holocaust.”

1512Nobel laureates who demonized: German novelist Günter Grass (left), who served in Nazi Germany’s armed SS force, claimed that Israel threatens Iran with a nuclear genocide. Portuguese novelist José Saramago (right), gave credence to a distorted, demonizing vision that culminated in the perverse comparison between Hitler and Israel.

Mr. Saramago, while he was visiting Ramallah, chose not to see and talk about the Israeli restaurants, shopping malls and hotels turned into carpets of human bodies. The wholesale slaughter of Jews was the only reason Israel had to send tanks and soldiers back into the Palestinian cities after the Oslo Accords. Saramago did not mention the context; he preferred to give credence to a distorted, demonizing vision that culminated in the perverse comparison between Hitler and Israel, and the transformation of the Jewish State — the historical home of the Jews for nearly 4000 years, and lately the only sanctuary not to turn away Jews being persecuted or rounded up for death — into an “imperialist base.”

It is by repeating lies that Europe even accepted the big Mohammed al-Dura lie: a boy supposedly riddled to death with Israeli bullets, but there was not one drop of blood! Not only that, but after he was dead, he moved his hand to look out. Quite a feat. For a time, the lie even became the favorite table conversation for Europe’s upper classes.

This is how millions of Europeans have been persuaded to see Israel as the aggressor and the Palestinian terrorists as the victims. They read the inverted, Orwellian revision of history every day on the front pages. Look at what is happening now during this “Third Intifada”: it is filled with knives, stabbings of Jews, even charts on the internet showing where to stab a Jew to do the most damage. The many dead Israeli civilians and soldiers have totally disappeared from the television screen, but when Israeli soldiers shoot a Palestinian in the process of stabbing a Jew, they are labelled by a corrupt and racist media as “illegal executioners.”

What would these supposed intellectuals do if citizens were being stabbed in London, Rome or Berlin? The “intellectuals” and the media seem to be trying to make the Jews unable to defend themselves. The “intellectuals” and the media are preaching for Israel’s destruction.

_____________________

[1] From the Oslo II Accord — Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, September 28, 1995, CHAPTER 3 – LEGAL AFFAIRS, ARTICLE XVII
 — Jurisdiction:

4. a. Israel, through its military government, has the authority over areas that are not under the territorial jurisdiction of the Council, powers and responsibilities not transferred to the Council and Israelis.

b. To this end, the Israeli military government shall retain the necessary legislative, judicial and executive powers and responsibilities, in accordance with international law. This provision shall not derogate from Israel’s applicable legislation over Israelis in personam.

Trump and the Left’s Accusations of Fascism

March 16, 2016

Trump and the Left’s Accusations of Fascism, Front Page MagazineBruce Thornton, March 16, 2016

trump

Donald Trump’s success in the primaries and his rhetoric have sparked troubled meditations about an awakening of fascist impulses among his supporters. Bret Stephens has drawn an analogy with the Thirties, “the last dark age of Western politics,” and compared Trump to Benito Mussolini. On the left, Dana Milbank, in a column titled “Trump Flirts with Fascism,” wrote about a campaign rally at which Trump was “leading supporters in what looked very much like a fascist salute,” a scene New York Times house-conservative David Brooks linked to the Nuremberg party rallies.

Much of the rhetoric that links Trump to fascism or Nazism is merely the stale ad Hitlerum fallacy used by progressives to demonize the candidate. They did the same thing when they called George W. Bush “Bushitler.” This slur reflects the hoary leftist dogma that conservatives at heart are repressed xenophobes and knuckle-dragging racists lusting for a messianic leader to restore their lost “white privilege” and punish their minority, immigrant, and feminist enemies. As such, the attack on Trump is nothing new or unexpected from a progressive ideology whose totalitarian inclinations have always had much more in common with fascism than conservatism does.

What Auden called the “low dishonest decade” of the Thirties, however, is indeed instructive for our predicament today, but not because of any danger of a fascist party taking root in modern America. Communism was (and in some ways still is) vastly more successful at infiltrating and shaping American political, cultural, and educational institutions than fascism ever was. But the same cultural pathologies that enabled both fascist and Nazi aggression still afflict us today. These pathologies and their malign effects are more important than the reasons for Trump’s popularity–– anger at elites, economic stagnation, and anti-immigrant passions–– that supposedly echo the “waves of fear and anger” of Auden’s Thirties.

The most important delusion of the Thirties still active today is the idealistic internationalism that had developed over the previous century. A world shrunk by new communication and transportation technologies and linked by global trade, internationalists argued, meant nations and peoples were becoming more alike. Thus they desired the same prosperity, political freedom, human rights, and peace that the West enjoyed. Interstate relations now should be based on this “harmony of interests,” and managed by non-lethal transnational organizations rather than by force. Covenants and treaties like the Hague and Geneva Conventions, and institutions like the League of Nations and the International Court of Arbitration, could peacefully resolve conflicts among nations through diplomatic engagement, negotiation, and appeasement.

The Preamble to the First Hague Convention (1899) captures the idealism that would compromise foreign policy in the Thirties. The Convention’s aims were “the maintenance of the general peace” and “the friendly settlement of international disputes.” This goal was based on the “solidarity which unites the member of the society of civilized nations” and their shared desire for “extending the empire of law and of strengthening the appreciation of international justice.” Two decades later, the monstrous death and destruction of World War I should have shattered the delusion of such “solidarity” existing even among the “civilized nations.” Despite that gruesome lesson, Europe doubled down and created the League of Nations, which failed to stop the serial aggression that culminated in World War II.

But the League wasn’t the only manifestation of naïve internationalism. The Locarno Treaty of 1925 welcomed Germany back into the community of nations with a seat on the League of Nations council. Nobel Peace prizes, and wish-fulfilling headlines like the New York Times’ “France and Germany Bar War Forever,” were all that resulted. The Kellogg-Briand pact of 1928 “condemn[ed] recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce[d] it as an instrument of national policy” in interstate relations. The signing powers asserted that “the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts . . . shall never be sought except by pacific means.”

All the future Axis Powers signed the treaty, and they all soon shredded these “parchment barriers.” In the next few years, Japan invaded Manchuria, Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland in gross violation of the Versailles Treaty, and Italy invaded Ethiopia. By the time Germany annexed Austria, and Neville Chamberlain’s faith in negotiation and appeasement handed Czechoslovakia to Hitler, all these treaties and conventions and conferences were dead letters, and the League of Nations was exposed as a “cockpit in the tower of Babel,” as Churchill suggested after the First World War.

However, such graphic and costly evidence showing the folly of “covenants without the sword,” as Hobbes put it, did not discredit this dangerous idealism over the following decades. Indeed, it lies behind the disasters of Obama’s foreign policy. Just consider his “outreach” to our enemies, his acknowledgement of our own “imperfections,” his reliance on toothless U.N. Security Council Resolutions, his preference for non-lethal economic sanctions to pressure adversaries, and his belief that negotiated settlements and agreements can achieve peace and good relations even with our fiercest enemies. All reflect the same failure to recognize that our adversaries in fact do not sincerely want to reach an agreement, for the simple reason they are not in fact “just like us,” and so they do not want peace and prosperity and good relations with their neighbors and the “world community.”

The catalogue of Obama’s failures is long and depressing. The “reset” with Russia and promise of “flexibility,” the empty “red line” threats against Bashar al Assad, the arrogant dismissal of a metastasizing ISIS as a “jayvee” outfit, the alienation of allies like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Israel, the cultivation of the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood, the ill-conceived overthrow of Muammar Ghaddafi, and the rhetoric of guilt and self-abasement are just the most noteworthy failures. The nuclear deal with Iran, of course, is the premier monument to this folly. Yet despite the increasing evidence of its futility­­––Iran’s saber-rattling in the Gulf, capture of U.S. military personnel, genocidal rhetoric, and testing of missiles in blatant violation of a U.N. Security Council resolution–– Obama still clings to this internationalist delusion.

A recent article in The Atlantic on Obama’s foreign policy shows, despite his protestations of hardheaded “realism,” that he has not learned from his failures. Thus he still thinks that the vigorous use of force is usually an unnecessary and dangerous mistake, and that verbal persuasion and diplomatic engagement are more effective. He also still believes that “multilateralism regulates [U.S.] hubris” of the sort that George W. Bush showed when he recklessly invaded Iraq, and that American foreign policy has frequently displayed.

Obama’s delusional faith in rhetoric, especially his own, comes through in his rationale for the infamous 2009 Cairo speech: “I was hoping that my speech could trigger a discussion, could create space for Muslims to address the real problems they are confronting—problems of governance, and the fact that some currents of Islam have not gone through a reformation that would help people adapt their religious doctrines to modernity.” The idea that Obama’s mere words could start a “discussion” that would transform 14-century-old religious doctrines fundamentally inimical to liberal democracy, human rights, and all the other Western goods we live by, is a fantasy. Obama’s self-regard recalls Neville Chamberlain’s boast after his meeting with Hitler at Bad Godesberg that he “had established some degree of personal influence with Herr Hitler.”

Or consider Obama’s take on Vladimir Putin:

He understands that Russia’s overall position in the world is significantly diminished. And the fact that he invades Crimea or is trying to prop up Assad doesn’t suddenly make him a player. You don’t see him in any of these meetings out here helping to shape the agenda. For that matter, there’s not a G20 meeting where the Russians set the agenda around any of the issues that are important.

A “player,” in Obama’s foreign policy universe, is a leader who uses “smart power” like diplomacy and negotiated deals, and recognizes that the use of force will backfire and lead to costly “quagmires.” As Secretary of State John Kerry suggested, Putin is using outdated “19th century” instruments of foreign policy like military force in a world that presumably has evolved beyond it.

In contrast, a genuine “player,” as Obama fancies himself, attends summits and conferences, such as the useless climate change conference in Paris, and “sets the agenda.” And like his rationale for the Cairo speech, as the leader of the world’s greatest power, his rhetoric alone can be a force for change. Thus just saying that Syria’s “Assad must go,” while doing nothing to achieve that end, is still useful, and refusing to honestly identify the traditional Islamic foundations of modern jihadism will build good will among Muslims and turn them against the “extremists.”

Meanwhile, Putin and Iran fight and bomb and kill in Syria and Iraq, and now they are the big “players” in a region that the U.S. once dominated, but that now serves the interests of Russia and Iran. I’m reminded of Demosthenes’ scolding of the Athenians for refusing to confront Phillip II of Macedon: “Where either side devotes its time and energy, there it succeeds the better––Phillip in action, but you in argument.”

In other words, for Obama as for Chamberlain, appeasing words rather than forceful deeds are the key to foreign policy––precisely the belief that led England to disastrously underestimate Hitler until it was too late. And that same belief has turned the Middle East into a Darwinian jungle of clashing tribes, sects, and nations.

Obama wraps his foreign policy of retreat in claims to “realist” calculations of America’s security and genuine interests, and buttresses his claim by citing his strategically inconsequential drone killings. But such rhetoric hides an unwillingness to risk consequential action and pay its political costs. And it reflects a commitment to the internationalist idealism that gives diplomatic verbal processes an almost magical power to transform inveterate enemies into helpful partners. Europe tried that in the Thirties, and it led to disaster. That’s a much more important lesson from that sorry decade’s history than the lurid fantasies about fascism coming to America on the wings of Trump’s rhetoric.

Left-Wing Groups Claim Victory, Fundraise Off Trump Protests

March 15, 2016

Left-Wing Groups Claim Victory, Fundraise Off Trump Protests, Washington Free Beacon, March 15, 2016

protest1Protestors march in Chicago before a rally with Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump / AP

Left-wing groups that have received money from the federal government and the MacArthur Foundation celebrated the disruption of Donald Trump’s rally in Chicago and are using the clashes to raise more money.

The progressive organizing group MoveOn.org, which boasts more than 8 million members nationwide, took partial credit for protests hours after a Trump rally was canceled in Chicago due to security concerns. Republicans who support Trump “should be on notice,” according to one MoveOn.org Political Action official.

“Mr. Trump and the Republican leaders who support him and his hate-filled rhetoric should be on notice after tonight’s events,” Ilya Sheyman, executive director of MoveOn.org Political Action, said in a statement hours after the clashes. “These protests are a direct result of the violence that has occurred at Trump rallies and that has been encouraged by Trump himself from the stage. Our country is better than the shameful, dangerous, and bigoted rhetoric that has been the hallmark of the Trump campaign.”

“To all of those who took to the streets of Chicago, we say thank you for standing up and saying enough is enough,” Sheyman said. “To Donald Trump, and the GOP, we say, welcome to the general election. Trump and those who peddle hate and incite violence have no place in our politics and most certainly do not belong in the White House.”

One day after this statement, Sheyman said it was “dishonest” to “scapegoat” progressive activists for the violence at the canceled Trump rally.

MoveOn.org, which was initially formed in 1998 to organize liberal opposition to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, receives financial support from liberal billionaire George Soros. Soros gave $1.46 million to MoveOn’s Voter Fund in 2004.

MoveOn has also taken money from a wide range of left-wing funds and foundations, including the Compton Foundation, the Shefa Fund, the Steven and Michelle Kirsch Foundation, and the Stern Family Fund.

The group raised nearly $20 million in 2012, $10 million in 2014, and has pulled in nearly $5 million for the 2016 elections to date, according to its most recent filings. MoveOn used the recent Trump protests in Chicago as another avenue of fundraising.

The group’s members voted overwhelmingly to back Bernie Sanders this election cycle. According to a release, 78.6 percent of MoveOn.org members voted to endorse Sanders, “shattering MoveOn records with most votes cast and largest margin of victory.”

The ANSWER (Act Now To Stop War and End Racism) Coalition, which has offices in 11 cities, including Chicago, also declared “victory” after the disruptions and called for protesters to “keep the fires going.”

“Large numbers of Latinos, Muslims, Black people, Asians, Arabs and whites stood together, out of necessity, to confront and defeat a great threat to the people. The threat is very real,” the group said in a press release following the events.

The group launched three days after September 11, 2001 with the intent of opposing military intervention following the terrorist attacks committed that day. It has since become involved in other political issues, including the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and has come under fire from numerous groups, including other anti-war groups, for its radical and anti-Zionist views.

ANSWER, which operates as a 501(c)3, has received funding from the Progress Unity Fund (PUF), a group founded in 2001 to “break down the barriers of divisiveness and discrimination that exist in the world, and replace them with a sense of solidarity.”

The Progress Unity Fund has provided hundreds of thousands in donations to ANSWER since its inception.

The Illinois Coalition of Immigrant and Refugee Rights is another organization involved in the Chicago protests. The group describes itself as “dedicated to promoting the rights of immigrants and refugees to full and equal participation in the civic, cultural, social, and political life of our diverse society.”

The group received a $450,000 grant from the Marguerite Casey Foundation in January 2016 for leadership development and network development, according to the foundation’s website.

The Chicago-based MacArthur Foundation, one of the nation’s largest independent foundations, giving hundreds of millions in donations to liberal organizations and causes every year, provided a $575,000 grant in 2014 to the organization to be used over the course of two years, according to its website.

The National Council of La Raza, the largest Latino activist organization in the United States, was also involved in the Trump protests.

La Raza gets two thirds of its funding from individuals and corporations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the American Express Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation. La Raza also receives funds from the United States government.

Cecilia Muñoz, the director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, previously served as La Raza’s senior vice president for the office of research, advocacy, and legislation.

Muñoz, who sat on the board of directors at Soros’s Open Society Institute before joining the White House, is married to human rights attorney Amit Pandya, a former counselor to the Open Society Institute.

After Muñoz joined President Obama’s team, funding from the government to La Raza nearly tripled, rising from $4.1 million to $11 million.

None of the groups returned a request for comment by press time.

Rush, Andrew, Donald, and the Republican Reconquista

March 15, 2016

Rush, Andrew, Donald, and the Republican Reconquista, American ThinkerJack Cashill, March 15, 2016

“Most of my friends were graduating that year,” writes Barack Obama in Dreams from My Father. “Hasan off to work with his family in London, Regina on her way to Andalusia to study Spanish Gypsies.”

Ah yes, “Andalusia!” That, of course, is left-speak for “Spain.” For anti-colonialists like Obama, Andalusia is more than an historical place. It is a metaphor for a progressive golden age, one in which wisdom ruled and peace reigned. “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance,” affirmed Obama at Cairo in 2009. “We see it in the history of Andalusia.”

True, after the invading Moors brutally ripped the Iberian Peninsula from its indigenous Latinos, peace of a sort did reign. It came at a price, specifically the jizya, a tax non-Muslims had to pay to secure their dhimmi status, the Islamic equivalent of Jim Crow.

The Moors arrived in the year 711. The Christians started reconquering their homeland in 721. It would take them seven centuries to finish the job. In all of Obama’s musings about Andalusia, he has spared scarcely a word for the “Reconquista,” a Republican variation of which has hatched on his watch.

A few days ago, casually searching YouTube, I came across a short video I had not seen in five years called “The Media Reaction to Jack Cashill’s Deconstructing Obama.” In seven compact minutes producer Chris Kusnell sheds some unexpected light on the Republican Reconquista in embryo.

 

 

What makes the video particularly relevant is that it features on-screen appearances by some of the leading figures in this movement — Rush Limbaugh, the late Andrew Breitbart, and, most intriguingly, Donald Trump.

Kusnell’s piece begins with a video of candidate Barack Obama boasting to a crowd of Virginia schoolteachers in July 2008, “I’ve written two books. I actually wrote them myself.”

Obama was comfortable making this claim for one reason: the left dominates America’s culture as thoroughly as the Andalusian Muslims did the culture of Iberia. From experience, Obama knew that the nation’s cultural imams were willing to enable his fraud if it advanced a cause close to their hearts.

And a fraud it most certainly was. By September 2008, I was 100 percent certain Obama did not write Dreams from My Father or Audacity of Hope by himself, and I was 90 percent certain that terrorist emeritus Bill Ayers co-authored Dreams.

Knowing Obama’s media allies would have zero interest in my evidence, I tried to find an influential forum on the right. Yet when I knocked on insider doors to advance my thesis, they remained firmly shut. Human Events punted on my research. The National Review did too. The FOX producers downstairs showed interest, but the suits upstairs did not.

The managing editor of the Weekly Standard referred me to the magazine’s literary editor, whose response was myopic to a fault: “An interesting piece, but I’m rather oversubscribed at the moment, the length is considerable, and cutting would not do it justice.”

A Weekly Standard cover that read “Who Wrote Dreams from My Father?” might have changed the outcome of the election, but the editor, alas, was “oversubscribed.” Like the other high profile dhimmis, he had made his “peace” with the progressive establishment. Whether Obama won or lost, he still had his job and the grudging tolerance of his overlords. He was not about to risk either to advance an idea someone might call “racist.”

On October 9, 2008, the American Thinker gave me the space I needed to make my case. Rush Limbaugh amplified the American Thinker piece that same day. As the Kusnell video shows, he gave it a good airing.

To keep Limbaugh’s influence in check, the cultural imams fought back with the most potent weapon in their arsenal — shame. “This may not have been Limbaugh’s most racist insinuation of the campaign,” said New Yorker editor David Remnick, citing others he liked less. He concluded, though, that our collective “libel about Obama’s memoir — the denial of literacy, the denial of authorship — had a particularly ugly pedigree.”

During the next four weeks, despite Limbaugh’s overture and my best efforts, not a single “respectable” conservative, either in the media or in the McCain campaign, dared explore this issue. On the up side, no one called our respectable friends “racist.” On the down side, Obama was elected president.

When McCain lost, the dhimmis blamed “Internet zanies” like me for his defeat. The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto singled me out by name as among those who “engaged in irresponsible rumor-mongering and conspiracy-theorizing.” The National Review’s Jonah Goldberg sniffed, “I think trying to claim some sort of literary conspiracy is a bridge too far.”

In the fall of 2009, without ever talking to me, bestselling celebrity biographer Christopher Andersen confirmed my thesis in his book, Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage. Although the apolitical Andersen spent six pages on Ayers’s involvement with Dreams, the mainstream media simply pretended he didn’t. And once again, the conservative media enabled the pretense.

In 2011, Simon & Schuster published my book, Deconstructing Obama. In it, I make a case for Ayers’s role as Obama’s muse so compelling that only a liberal or a dhimmi would deny it. As the Kusnell video shows, Andrew Breitbart was neither.

“Let’s get on to the racism of today,” Bill Maher asked Breitbart on his HBO show. “You do not believe Obama wrote his own book?” Breitbart was not surprised by this line of attack. Martin Bashir had already tried to shame him for defending me on his MSNBC show.

Breitbart, however, did not offer the expected apologies. A true culture warrior, he was taking conservatism one step beyond Limbaugh, out of the Dhimmi ghetto and right into the pinkest of parlors, fully impervious to their ritual defamation. His unexpected death in March 2012 stalled the Reconquista and his left his heirs fighting over his legacy.

The Kusnell video held one more surprise for me. In 2011, as the video shows, the only other major figure to support my thesis publicly was Donald Trump. Said Trump about Obama to a gathered crowd, “His whole aura was caused by the genius of the first book which was written by Bill Ayers.”

At the time, the media, Democrat and dhimmi, gleefully took Trump to task for questioning Obama’s birth certificate, but they dared not question him on the authorship issue. By 2011, even if the major media refused to admit it, most of them sensed Obama was a fraud. True to form, our dhimmi friends refused to raise the authorship issue in 2012 and once again helped elect Obama president.

What Limbaugh, Breitbart and Trump have in common is less a shared belief system than a refusal to accept their dhimmi status. They want to take the culture back. If Trump has attacked the dhimmi establishment from outside, Ted Cruz has attacked it from within. Calling the Senate majority leader a liar on the Senate floor is a sure way to get its attention.

Ordinary Americans are “mad as hell about political correctness and the havoc it has wreaked for 40 years — havoc made worse by the flat refusal of most serious Republicans to confront it,” writes David Gelertner in the Weekly Standard, a dhimmi publication hostile to Cruz and apoplectic about Trump. Yet Gelernter nails the issue.

In a June 10, 2015, column, I wrote, “The Republican nominee for president will be that candidate who best learns that there is no future in apologizing.” This was a week before Trump declared. I did not even know he was running.

Nine months later, Republican voters have rejected all the apologizers, all the collaborators, all the dhimmi candidates. Ready or not, they will be asked to join the first full scale battle in the Republican Reconquista behind either Donald Trump or Ted Cruz, and the dhimmis are atwitter.

Shame has not stopped either candidate. Violence won’t work either. The one force that will stop the Reconquista is division. There was much of that in Christian Iberia, so much of it, in fact, that it took seven centuries for the Christians to win their country back. Here is hoping the Republicans can do a little better.

 

 

From Ferguson to Chicago

March 14, 2016

From Ferguson to Chicago, Front Page MagazineMatthew Vadum, March 14, 2016

Chicago rally

The riot planned and executed by the Left at the canceled Donald Trump campaign rally in Chicago on Friday was just the latest in a long series of mob disturbances manufactured by radicals to advance their political agendas.

Even so, it is a particularly poisonous assault on the American body politic that imperils the nation’s most important free institution – the ballot.

“The meticulously orchestrated #Chicago assault on our free election process is as unAmerican as it gets,” tweeted actor James Woods. “It is a dangerous precedent.”

This so-called protest, and the disruptions at subsequent Trump events over the weekend, were not spontaneous, organic demonstrations. The usual culprits were involved behind the scenes. The George Soros-funded organizers of the riot at the University of Illinois at Chicago relied on the same fascistic tactics the Left has been perfecting for decades – including claiming to be peaceful and pro-democracy even as they use violence to disrupt the democratic process.

Activists associated with MoveOn, Black Lives Matter, and Occupy Wall Street, all of which have been embraced by Democrats and funded by radical speculator George Soros, participated in shutting down the Trump campaign event. Soros recently also launched a $15 million voter-mobilization effort against Trump in Colorado, Florida, and Nevada through a new super PAC called Immigrant Voters Win. The title is a characteristic misdirection since Trump supports immigration that is legal. It’s the invasion of illegals who have not been vetted and are filling America’s welfare rolls and jails that is the problem.

Among the extremist groups involved in disrupting the Trump rally in Chicago were the revolutionary communist organization ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism), National Council of La Raza (“the Race”), and the Illinois Coalition of Immigrant and Rights Reform. President Obama’s unrepentant terrorist collaborator Bill Ayers, who was one of the leaders of Days of Rage the precursor riot at the Democratic convention in Chicago in 1968, also showed up to stir the pot.

The goal was to help reinforce the media narrative that Trump is a dangerous authoritarian figure who needs to be stopped now before he upsets too many people and proclaims himself emperor, or some fevered fantasy like that. The organized rioters who showed up at UIC to taunt and bait Trump supporters, hoped to generate compelling TV clips that could be used to attack the Republican front-runner.

The people who infiltrated the Trump rally and attacked his supporters weren’t mere protesters and were not nonviolent. By now, after decades of getting away with lawlessness and mayhem, nonviolent left-wing protesters are as rare as four-leaf clovers.

They are violent agitators, trained in Alinsky-style disruption, aiming to shut Trump and his supporters down by any means they can get away with. These modern-day brownshirts use force and the threat of force to harass and intimidate, and to provoke people who have come to a peaceful assembly to hear their candidate speak.

“Many of these people come from Bernie [Sanders],” Trump said, pointing out how since the 1968 riot at the Democratic convention street radicals and party radicals have become a seamless force. On “Face the Nation” Trump called them “professional disrupters” a polite name for incipient fascists.

Since the liberal media was already blaming him for the anti-Trump thuggery, he told them, “I don’t accept responsibility,” Trump said on Sunday TV. “I do not condone violence in any shape.”

In speeches since Friday Trump regularly invokes Bernie Sanders when an activist disrupts. He calls them “Bernie’s people.” At one stop, Trump said, “Get ’em out. Hey Bernie, get your people in line.”

Although Sanders supporters are well-represented among the anti-Trump thugs, the self-described socialist senator from Vermont denied the charge. But Bernie’s campaign is so focused on demonizing the rich and blaming them for America’s problems, the hatred he is retailing can reasonably be called an incitement to those who buy his propaganda and support him.

Sanders after all is a lifetime admirer of Communist states like the Soviet Union and Cuba where this kind of thuggery is a political norm.  So even if he’s telling the truth and did give the orders to his followers to be there, he’s lying. They came because they hate rich people too.

Major organizations of the left who are backing Sanders, like Moveon.org openly bragged about trampling on Trump’s free speech rights in Chicago, and promised more of it.

Incredibly, instead of blaming the Left for the attacks on Trump, all three of Trump’s remaining rivals for the GOP nomination are joining the left in blaming him for the violence that unfolded. If the roles were reversed, leftists would call it blaming the victim.

Continuing the scorched earth policy that has damaged his campaign Marco Rubio laid the blame at Trump’s door. “This is what a culture and a society looks like when everyone goes around saying whatever the heck they want. The result is, it all breaks down. It’s called chaos. It’s called anarchy and that’s what we’re careening towards.”

Breaking of ranks on the right in order to blame Trump is a betrayal that has ominous implications for the future of the conservative cause.

Rubio and John Kasich have gone even further, wavering on their pledge to support Trump if he wins the party’s nomination.

Rubio downplays the fact that it’s the activist Left that is generating chaos, not Donald Trump and his supporters, a dagger aimed right at the heart of the Republican coalition.

Robert Spencer reflects that these Republican attacks “have tacitly encouraged the rioters by claiming that Trump is at least partially responsible for what they did.” It’s a re-imposition of political correctness. Spencer explains: “In that scenario, you see, it becomes incumbent upon Trump not to say anything that Leftist thugs might dislike, or he will bear partial responsibility for what they do. Cruz, Rubio and Kasich, of course, will also have to be careful not to ‘create an environment’ that might force the Left-fascists to shut them down as well. But unless they become clones of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, they will inevitably end up creating that ‘environment’ anyway, despite their being more decorous and careful than Trump. And then they will be responsible for what they get, won’t they?”

The left didn’t need a Trump provocation. For the left, the issue is never the issue: the issue is always the revolution, that is, the war against Amerikkka, as an SDS radical put it many years ago. Everything is an excuse to advance the radical cause.

Meanwhile, leftist Alex Seitz-Wald wrote a glowing review at NBC.com of the activists’ anti-democratic efforts in Chicago, as if silencing candidates were a legitimate form of political activity as American as apple pie. “What made Chicago different,” Seitz wrote, were its scale and the organization behind the effort. Hundreds of young, largely black and brown people poured in from across the city, taking over whole sections of the arena and bracing for trouble. And as the repeated chants of ‘Ber-nie’ demonstrated, it was largely organized by supporters of Sanders, the Democratic presidential candidate who has struggled to win over black voters but whose revolutionary streak has excited radicals of all racial demographics.”

Seitz urged his readers to “‘Remember the #TrumpRally wasn’t just luck. It took organizers from dozens of organizations and thousands of people to pull off. Great work,’ tweeted People for Bernie, a large unofficial pro-Sanders organization founded by veterans of the Occupy movement and other leftist activists.”

Chicago is overrun by radical leftists and is in a constant state of turmoil nowadays so throwing together a demonstration against anyone to the right of Che Guevara wasn’t too difficult a task. Sanders backers and Black Lives Matter thugs were easy to find on social media. At the UIC campus, the Black Student Union and a group called Fearless and Undocumented got to work recruiting disrupters.

Illegal alien Jorge Mena, a graduate student at UIC, started a petition at MoveOn.org demanding the school cancel the event. It garnered in excess of 50,000 signatures including UIC faculty. MoveOn paid for signs and a banner and emailed its Chicagoland members, urging them to get involved.

On the night of the rally, activists snuck into the venue and assembled at “designated multiple rallying points around the venue to avoid arousing suspicion of authorities with large congregations,” Seitz-Wald writes.

“As activists slipped into the lines, they were told to blend in with the crowd and act natural. Inside, about 100 protesters received coveted orange wristbands allowing them access to the floor. Even as organizers tried to maintain calm, some scuffles with Trump fans started right away, and police began removing people.” And that was all that was necessary. The powder was in place and the fuse was lit. But then Trump consulted with his security people and cancelled the event.

This is only the beginning, regardless of whether Trump secures the GOP nomination for president. Socialism is coming to America – at the ballot box and in the streets.

Editors’ note: The Freedom Center is a 501c3 non-profit organization. Therefore we do not endorse political candidates either in primary or general elections. However, as defenders of America’s social contract, we insist that the rules laid down by both parties at the outset of campaigns be respected, and that the results be decided by free elections. We will oppose any attempt to rig the system and deny voters of either party their constitutional right to elect candidates of their choice.

How Not to Fight Our Enemies

March 13, 2016

How Not to Fight Our Enemies, Front Page MagazineDavid Horowitz, March 13, 2016

(An excellent article by David Horowitz. — DM)

cdtobckueaez4sp

The mob that came to disrupt the Trump rally in Chicago was neither spontaneous nor innocent, nor new. It was a mob that has been forming ever since the Seattle riots against the World Trade Organization in 1999, whose target was global capitalism. The Seattle rioters repeated their outrages for the next two years and then transformed itself into the so-called “anti-war” movement to save the Saddam dictatorship in Iraq. Same leaders, funders and troops. The enemy was always America and its Republican defenders. When Obama invaded countries and blew up families in Muslim countries, there was no anti-war movement because Obama was one of them, and they didn’t want to divide their support. In 2012 the so-called “anti-war” movement reformed as “Occupy Wall Street.” They went on a rampage creating cross-country riots to protesting the One Percent and provided a whipping boy for Obama’s re-election campaign. Same leaders, same funders and troops. In 2015 the same leftwing forces created and funded Black Lives Matter and lynch mobs in Ferguson and Baltimore who targeted “white supremacists” and police.

Behind all the mobs was the organized left – MoveOn.org, the public sector unions runby Sixties leftovers,  and the cabal of anti-American billionaires led by George Soros. The mobs themselves were composed of the hate-filled foot soldiers of the political left. Now these forces have gathered in the campaign to elect the Vermont communist and are focusing their venom on Donald Trump. The obvious plan is to make Republicans toxic while driving a wedge through the Republican Party. The plan is defeat Republicans in November so that the destructive forces they have set in motion in the Democratic Party can finish the wrecking job that Obama started.

One of the professionally produced signs at the Chicago mob scene proclaimed, “This is what democracy looks like.” Actually it is exactly what fascism looks like. As every student of the Thirties knows, the break up of democratic forums by Nazi and Communist thugs paved the way for Hitler’s election. Just like the mobs of the Thirties, today’s left is driven by racial and class hate, and is utterly contemptuous of the democratic process – hence the effort to hang the Ferguson cop before the trial and to prevent Trump from expounding his views in Chicago.

And what has been the reaction of the presidential candidates, particularly those who propose to save the country? It is to blame Trump as though he and not the left had instigated the riot. If you play with matches like Trump did, opined Hillary Clinton, you’re likely to start a fire. This is the same Hillary Clinton who has compared Republicans to terrorists and called them racists, and who once accused a “vast right-wing conspiracy” of inventing her husband’s paramour. The Democratic Party has officially endorsed the Black Lives Matter racists and rioters. But it is not only the left who is attempting to blame Trump for the Chicago debacle.

According to the proudly positive John Kasich, it was Trump who created the “toxic environment” that led to the riot – not the fascist movement that has been metastasizing in our universities and streets for more than a decade. In other words, when you finally go on the attack, attack a Republican rather than a Democrat. That way you get a pass.

Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz and their spokespeople piled on Trump as well. “Ted Cruz Claims Trump Is To Blame For Violence At His Rallies,” ran a headline in the leftwing New York Times. His Republican attackers attempted to shame Trump for speaking to the anger of his conservative supporters instead of bringing everyone together – those who claim we live in a white supremacist society and the whites they are attacking, those who claim that Republicans are terrorists and racists and the victims of this abuse. As though you can create unity with people who hate you because you are white or rich, or believe that America is a nation worth saving. The fact is that Trump’s anger is pretty controlled, considering the hate-filled environment of Islamic terrorists, illegal immigrants, event disrupters and rival candidates openly smearing him.

He is often guilty of over-reach – “punch him in the nose” directed at one disrupter, but this is hardly the sin his detractors suggest in comparing him to Mussolini. That is a much great violence to the man who is its target. Aside from Trump’s compulsive over-reach what is wrong with anger in the current political context? Is it wrong to be angry at what Obama and the Democrats and the progressive mobs are doing to our country? How is this dissociation from Trump mob attack not the same surrender to political correctness that conservatives like Rubio and Cruz claim to reject? Aren’t Cruz and Rubio angry at what is being done to our country? Why are they willing to validate the hypocritical slanders of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, two architects of our disasters?

This is the reality we must never forget: There is an anti-American radical in the White House who – with the support of his party – has delivered nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles and a hundred billion dollars to our mortal enemies in Teheran who have declared their intentions to kill us. This suicidal deal was not an oversight, as Rubio has correctly observed, but the result of decades of thinking that America and Israel are adversaries, and our enemies are their victims. The extremists of #Never Trump exemplify the malaise Republicans have been prisoners of for years, which is what the primary revolt is about. Why was there no #Never Obama movement in 2012? For Republicans such a movement would be unthinkable. It would be too angry. It would be called racist. On the other hand, no one will call us racist for attacking a fellow Republican. So let’s join the left in smearing one of our own and hope that we can scrub off the stigmas that Democrats have tarred us with in the process. We’re not racists. Let’s not fight Obama, which will prove that we are. Let’s have respectful words for the lynch mob left.  If we capitulate the disaster unfolding before us, maybe it will go away. That is what the Trump crowd is angry about and mainstream Republicans should be too.

At the outset of the presidential debates all the Republican candidates pledged to support the party’s choice in November. Extra pressure was put on Trump to do so and he did. But now that millions of Republicans have cast their ballots for Trump, Rubio and Kasich are threatening to renege on their pledge, and destroy both the party and the country in the process. And Cruz, while sniping at Trump’s alleged role in inciting the leftists is notably non-committal about whether he will support a Trump primary victory. None of them explain how you can fight fascist leftists without actually fighting them and opening yourself to the charge of anger.

Perhaps it is money from the #Never Trump crowd – the extremists who want to thwart the popular vote and fatally split the party – that is behind this perfidy. But as someone who until very recently held high opinions of Rubio and Cruz, I am hoping that it is not too late for somebody to wake them up. I am hoping that somebody says: Cut it out. Come to your senses. Your scorched earth warfare is threatening the very existence of the right. Trump isn’t the enemy. Like you he is opposed to the Iran deal, supports a secure border, recognizes the Islamist threat, wants to reduce taxes and make the country solvent, and is greatly expanding the Republican base. Attempt to beat him at the polls if you think he shouldn’t be president but let the voters decide the result, and respect their decision. The alternative is a fratricidal war that could drive large numbers of conservatives away from the polls, and whose beneficiaries will only be America’s enemies at home and abroad.

Obama’s Source for Israel Says Country Run by Evil “Elders of Zion”

February 1, 2016

Obama’s Source for Israel Says Country Run by Evil “Elders of Zion” Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, February 1, 2016

(Shocking, perhaps, but not surprising. — DM)

amirahass

Anti-Zionism is just Anti-Semitism misspelled. The Anti-Zionist left continues to remind us of that.

Haaretz is a crazed anti-Israel paper operating out of Israel even though a number of its high profile writers have publicly announced that they refuse to live in the country. It’s also the voice of Israel’s left-wing establishment. A voice that is growing crazier and crazier by the minute.

Obama however is [sic] a phone. Addressing the last HaaretzQ conference, at which the Israeli flag had to be taken down, he said, “As Israel’s oldest newspaper, Haaretz has never been afraid to speak truth to power. Over the years, I’ve turned to you as well for your reporting and analysis.”

This is the kind of deranged anti-Israel hate that Obama has “turned to” for understanding Israel.

After the last election, Haaretz’s Gideon Levy, who really hates Israel demanded “The nation must be replaced. Not another election for the country’s leadership, but general elections to choose a new Israeli people – immediately.”

He has justified Muslim terror attacks against Israelis. Gideon Levy demanded, “Did Israel Really Think Hamas Would Turn the Other Cheek”. Levy pushes BDS and calls for the destruction of Israel via a “one state solution”.

But then there’s Amira Hass, who justifies Muslim violence against Jews and tried to live in Gaza. She claimed that Jews moving to Israel are committing a crime, calls Israel an “apartheid state” and called Gaza a “concentration camp”. She claimed that throwing stones at Jews is, “a metaphor for resistance.” Hass is the official Haaretz correspondent.

In Haaretz’s race to the bottom, Amira Hass decided to invoke the Elders of Zion just to remind everyone once again that the left is anti-Semitic and that it’s opposition to Israel is based entirely on its hatred of Jews.

As David Collier reports,

“Amira Hass said was that what we see today is the result of deliberate planning by a hidden group of Jews called the ‘Elders of Zion’. It was all planned. In a liberal democracy that bends to the will of the elected government, the idea of hidden plans and puppet masters is the stuff of conspiracy theorists. This is a conspiracy about Jews and secret plans for domination. You can listen to the comment itself here:”

Here’s the direct quote from Hass, whose last name appropriately enough means hate.

“Did the Elders of Zion really sit together at the beginning of the seventies and then during the nineties and planned, and have all these military decrees, military orders and changes? Viewing this tremendous change, I believe that they were.”

And this is Obama’s source for analysis and reporting on Israel. If a Republican candidate had named a source synonymous with crazed bigotry as a source for understanding Israel, there would have been outrage. But Obama gets a pass for viewing Amira Hass and Gideon Levy as legitimate sources for understanding what is going on in Israel.

 

Self-flagellation, hypocrisy and double standards in the Duma arson case

January 8, 2016

Self-flagellation, hypocrisy and double standards in the Duma arson case | Anne’s Opinions, 7th January 2016

(While we must condemn any extremism and violence that emanates from the Israeli side as well as from the Arabs, the self-condemnation that has been going on since the Duma arson-murder has gone overboard — anneinpt)

In my post on the arrest of Jewish suspects in the Duma arson-murder, there was a slightly heated discussion in the comments about the perpetrators, the numbers of their supporters, and whether Israel has done or is doing enough to counteract this level of extremism amongst Jewish youngsters.

Amiram Ben-Uliel, indicted for the Duma arson murder

I am of the opinion that while there is always room for improvement in education and for strong and moral religious leadership, there are times when the self-flagellation of the Israeli Jewish religious Zionist right-wing (I use all those adjectives advisedly) goes overboard and in the end serves not to improve the situation but to increase defensiveness and resentment on the one hand, and provide fodder for Israel’s haters on the other hand.

Finding the right balance is very difficult, especially when the self-flagellation is urged on and leapt on with glee by Israel’s Left.

I have the nagging feeling that I didn’t make myself clear enough in my post, and then I found a few articles which express my feelings and my attitude more eloquently. Here are just a few excerpts but I urge you to read the entire articles.

First, Arlene Kushner, always sensible and level-headed, in an excellent article “It is time” where she questions the entire basis of the case against the suspects.

On the part of the Jews of Israel, there was, first, a stunned sorrow, on learning that a baby had been destroyed, that a family had been attacked in their home. But then there was the difficulty of taking in the fact that it may have been Jews who did this. Jews are not supposed to behave thus. The visceral reaction was that such an act demeaned us, as a people.

There were demonstrations to register opposition to terrorism; rabbis who spoke out forcefully against use of violence for resolving societal problems; editorials that decried what our society was in danger of becoming and demanded communal soul-searching.

And so, there was a way in which it was possible to say that we had demonstrated that this is not what what we are – we had demonstrated to ourselves and before the world that we are different. We stand against violence.

And yet there was a point at which this ceased to resonate positively. There was too much breast-beating, a tone that echoed a sort of communal guilt that was not appropriate. Condemning the terrorism implicit in burning a baby is one thing. Assuming that our whole society is generating a terrorist mentality – because of one act that may or may not have been committed by Jews – is something else.

(I didn’t say this explicitly in August, but I would suggest now that this was galut mentality. This rush to assume guilt. Seeking answers and being ready to acknowledge the fact of a Jew who committed a terror act is one thing – this went further.)

Add to this the way in which our political adversaries and enemies chose to use the terror act in Duma to attack Israel.

And the way in which leftist Israelis sought to use this as a weapon against “religious Zionists,” “nationalists” – representing them as violent crazies who must be restrained.

As for the EU, their response to this incident was vile:

“The Israeli authorities should … take resolute measures to protect the local population. We call for full accountability, effective law enforcement and zero tolerance for settler violence,” declared a spokesperson for Federica Mogherini, head of foreign policy for the EU, in a prepared statement.

When, ever, did you hear an EU spokesperson say to Abbas or other PA leaders that it was time for them to take full accountability for the violence visited upon Jews by Arabs living in PA areas? When did they demand zero PA tolerance for violence? Rhetorical questions, of course. The EU does not see fit to predicate support for the PA on its accountability with regard to terrorism. And yet Mogherini’s spokesperson had the gall to speak about protecting the local Arab population from Jews.

Arlene addresses the problematic evidence that was posited – never officially presented so far – as “proof” that these Jewish youngsters committed the deed. She also writes about the alleged abuse and even torture carried out against the suspects in order to obtain confessions. She then notes:

It was explained by multiple persons – persons in gov’t and journalists – that the Shin Bet was dealing with a very serious situation that necessitated “toughness” – because these young people want to overthrow the government and are dangerous. Overthrow the government? That would justify a great deal. This was the original claim of Ya’alon that I referred to above.

But what does this mean? That the hilltop youth are thoroughly alienated by the government and would prefer one that works according to principles of Torah is likely true. But it’s a huge stretch from acknowledging this to saying they represent a “danger.” This, my friends, I find it difficult to believe. There has been no evidence to bolster this claim – not with all of the investigation of the group that has been done. A convenient charge to make, perhaps to justify actions that should not be justified How? How would they be a danger in any real sense? And if they are a danger, why have no indictments in this respect been brought?

What occurred to me as these charges were being made is that we have at least one Arab member of the Knesset (Hanin Zoabi) who speaks for the enemy – and yet she is still in the Knesset. But the young people are dangerous? Is there equity of judgment here, or is it a matter of what is politically correct, and what will fly?

~~~~~~~~~~

Still another explanation offered for why “tough interrogation” was required was that these young people represented a “ticking bomb.” By this was meant there was a real danger of their doing a second time what they had done once in Duma, so that information had to be secured quickly to prevent this from happening.

But this does not fly either. The arson at Duma happened at the end of July, and these young people were at large until approximately mid-November. That would have been plenty of time for them to perpetrate another terror attack, had that been their intention. There is no way to make the case for a ticking bomb here!

Just read the rest. I could quote the entire article here but for lack of space.

I now come to a very powerful article written (in Hebrew only) by Kalman Liebskind, an Israeli journalist with Maariv, Makor Rishon and other media. He writes about the hypocrisy of the Left on their glee at the indictment of right-wingers for the Duma murder. He also addresses withering criticism at the left, particularly the media’s double standards, when it comes to reporting on Arab terrorism as opposed to Jewish violence.

I will translate part of his article entitled “Dancing on the blood: The shock about the wedding video was a huge display of hypocrisy and cynicism“. But I urge you to read the entire article if you are a Hebrew speaker, and if not, get someone to translate it all. It’s long but very worth-while. (Hint to the uninitiated: do not use Google Translate!!).

The wedding of hate

The wedding video he referred to was this disgusting incident where where some of the celebrants at an Israeli wedding danced around waving guns and knives and stabbing a photo of baby Ali Dawabshe. Doubts still remain whether this was the action of Jewish extremists or a Shabak agent provocateur (which has precedent, e.g. in the case of Avishai Raviv and the Rabin assassination).

The Duma murder case, certainly after the effect of the wedding video, paralysed the majority of the national (rightist) camp. Not just paralysis, but withering real fear. Fear of “what will they say about us”, which is the worst kind of fear.

That fear – that maybe we won’t look good in the media, maybe they will smear us again, as they did after the Rabin assassination, as part of the supporters’ camp of the murderers – is a dangerous fear. It does not allow us to wonder and to criticise. It does not enable us to hold a complex discourse. It does not permit you to say you’re concerned about the torture, without the fear that it will turn you into Benzi Gopstein (an extreme right-winger). It doesn’t enable you to say that it was important to see the wedding video, but is equally important to remember that it described the behavior of several dozen people in all. This fear does not allow one to come out harshly against the rampage of all those involved in these investigations, to place question marks around the draconian measures taken against young people, who by now it is clear that some of them were not connected to the murder, and to wonder how the court served as a rubber stamp for anything asked of it.

So why do this paralysis and fear amongst the right-wingers in particular bother me so much? Because I have no expectations from the left and from the media. They are now in the midst of celebration. Once in a while they have a chance to put the national camp or the religious Zionist movement on the stake and mark them all a bed of killers, and such moments they sing “My Lord, My Lord, Let it never end.”

I have absolutely nothing to do with those who committed the murder Duma nor with the people who belong to the group that surrounds them. I am a Zionist, I believe in the State, I am against violence, in short: the complete opposite of the mutinous league of Meir Ettinger & Co. Therefore, my words are not said in order to defend them, but in order to say a lot of words in condemnation of those who cover these cases. Because if we are dealing with double standards, the media treatment of this group is infected with it.

This week, after I had internalized what had been explained to me, that this group should be treated like terrorists in every respect, I noticed that all the rules that apply to regular coverage of Palestinian terrorists, for some reason do not apply to them. Because when it comes to Palestinian terrorism, we are always busy trying to understand its origin. For an Arab does not murder just because he hates Jews. There is the occupation and there is despair, there are roadblocks and there is revenge for the death of his relatives.

And suddenly, I wondered to myself, where did all those people who usually seek reasons and justifications for terrorism?. After all, if the Arab murderers have good reasons, Jews too probably have several. Maybe it’s the Arab terrorism that brings death and destruction, maybe it’s the despair from our security forces who did not manage to put a end to this terrorism. Maybe it’s because of the Civil Administration which destroys illegal construction by Jews but not by Arabs.

But no. Now you will not hear these questions. There questions which are not asked. Like you will never hear, when Israeli Arabs carry out attacks or simply join Daesh, any discussion that will address the flowerbed in which they grew up, or the atmosphere that brought them to where they arrived. Arabs are individuals. They take charge.They do not have a supportive environment. They are “lone terrorists”.

In my eyes, to be clear, there are no good killers and there is no reason and never an excuse to justify violence. I’m just having trouble understanding why some murderers get “season-end discounts”, and some do not. And how is it that following the murder committed by Arabs, [TV channel 2 news anchor] Yonit Levy asked Minister Gilad Erdan why his government is not building a new Arab city, and yet there is no chance after the murder Duma, that he will be asked why the government is not building new settlements for Jews.

Regarding double standards, it must be explained as clearly as possible. Yes, the attitude towards Palestinians and towards Israelis in the interrogation rooms should not be the same. This is not a racist issue. The separation is not between Jews and Arabs, but between citizens of Israel and its enemies. The Palestinians are an external enemy. They are not part of us. We have no obligation towards them like we have for our own citizens. Incidentally, this difference not only must exist, it always has existed. We fought against external enemies with Merkava 3 tanks, against domestic enemies we do not. Not everything that is permissible in war against an external adversary, is allowed against an opponent at home.

I support the idea that everyone from this group who took part in violence should spend long years in jail. But I will not fall victim to the spin of the GSS [Shabak] which is trying to convince me that this group wanted to crown a king here and topple the regime. With all due respect, Meir Ettinger, age 20 and a bit, is not bringing down any regime and is not crowning any kings. Greater men than he have tried and not succeeded.

I’m not stupid. it’s clear to me that the media isnot dealing with this group of hilltop youth to this extent because it has a problem with those ten or 40 guys. This group is a decoy. Behind it lie the real goals, the more interesting targets. Religious Zionism. The settlers. I see the attacks on the settler society, the usual rubbish about the “flower-beds” in which these murderers grew up, and I’m horrified at the ability to incite and twist reality.

This society should not be receiving criticism, but the Israel Prize for Education. The settlement enterprise has raised children for years under incessant daily terror. There is hardly anyone who travels on the roads of Samaria, and was not at one time the target of attempted murder – by stones, firebombs or shooting. Amongst the settlement enterprise there is not one person who does not know someone who was killed: A friend, a neighbor or relative. There is hardly a school without a missing chair of a murdered child, or a chair on which sits an orphaned child whose father was murdered. And the one responsible for all this is the Palestinian Arab enemy who lives meters away. Reach out and touch him. The victims of these attacks see the society from whose midst the killers leave every day. They travel alongside them on the road, while their blood is boiling, but their hearts full of longing for their fallen friends.

And despite all of this, despite all the difficulties, all the pain, they bury their friends and continue to do good. To get up in the morning, go to work, to enlist and serve in the most contributing combat units, to give as much as possible. And, surprisingly, quite surprisingly, no one takes the law into their own hands. Almost no one takes revenge. A terrible Duma event such as this occurs once in many years. Those who are teaching this generation are succeeding, God knows how, to channel all the anger and all the sadness and frustration to better places. In Itamar they continue to do charitable kindness. In Yitzhar settlement they can alreay count the 5th kidney donor to an unknown recipient, and they will continue to recruit the sixth and seventh donors. I find it hard to see another society stand up to such ordeals and come out like that.

They are deserving of a salute for all this, they deserve a lot of living water to irrigate their flower-beds, and not cries of derision.

Liebskind goes on to talk about several other “scandals” that have made the headlines in Israel lately: a book banned by the Education Ministry from the school curriculum (not banned from the bookshops, please note); the “gas deal” enabling those whom the Left would call “oligarchs”, those people who invested their money in discovering Israel’s natural gas – to actually profit from their investment as well as enabling Israel to gain from it; a law proposed by the Justice Minister demanding transparency from foreign NGOs who mostly work to undermine Israel’s sovereignty, and then concludes:

This group [the Left] is trying in any which way to overturn our vote in the elections and make it meaningless. They took an educated decision not to enable the public’s elected representatives to rule or to advance their own world values in whose name they were elected. When 40-odd hilltop youth decide to undermine the legitimacy of the regime, it’s one thing. When the leading media leads this line aggressively, that bothers me a whole lot more.

There is one more article to which I would point you, by Ari Soffer in Arutz Sheva: Unravelling the Duma circus. He repeats much of the arguments of both Arlene Kushner and Kalman Liebskind but he also makes other interesting points:

What is the reason for this absurd dichotomy? For the circus of collective guilt and hysteria on the Left, and of self-delusion and conspiracy theories on the Right?

The answer is just one word: insecurity. The insecurity born of two millennia of exile is now amplified in our Jewish state, to the point that what should have been a professional, objective police investigation immediately morphed into a hopelessly politicized platform for all the emotional baggage of the Left and Right to be unloaded.

Underlying the reactions of both Left and Right are one or both of two fears. The first is that wretched psychological relic of the ghetto: “What will the world think?” As if our actions as a people must always be condemned to be judged against the yardstick of what others think.

The second fear is related, but more internal: What happens to our perceived moral superiority? It’s the Palestinians who commit acts of terror, not us, and an attack by Jewish terrorists would ruin this narrative which so many lean on as a psychological, intellectual and emotional crutch. Are we now no better than them?

(There is a third motivation, for those few poor Jewish souls who actually revel in guilt, those for whom Jewish guilt and notions of “we’re just as bad as/worse than them” is political currency. But that is a different story altogether.)

The response to either fear must either be to “prove” – to “the nations of the world” and/or to ourselves – that we are still good people, still better than the Palestinians. This can either be achieved by denying everything, or by preemptively confessing to every possible accusation (fair or unfair) and begging for forgiveness.

And yet, this is not a sane or rational response.

Could it have been Jewish extremists? Of course – we know there are fanatics capable of this. Meir Ettinger and others have even circulated booklets instructing how to conduct attacks in order to collapse the government and help usher in the crowning of a “king.”

Could it have been an Arab feud dressed up to look like a “price tag action”? Anything is possible, and that has actually happened in a minority of more minor cases, but it’s obvious that this is not the most likely option, and investigating the former avenue first is hardly proof of some kind of anti-Jewish bias.

Every single nation or community in the world has its extremists: from White Supremacists and Christian fundamentalists, to extreme Hindu nationalists, even Buddhist extremists in Burma – and of course Muslim extremists, who commit daily atrocities throughout the globe. But societies must not be judged by the actions of a few extremists but by the reaction of the wider society to them. In Israel, the reaction, from Left to Right (beyond the very furthest fringes), has been nonstop condemnation. In Palestinian society, the response – whether from the “moderate” Fatah or the “extremist” Hamas and Islamic Jihad – has been praise, glorification, encouragement and incitement of anti-Semitic terrorism. We condemn it, while they revel in it – that speaks volumes.

We need not “prove” our moral worthiness because the facts speak for ourselves. Those who would judge the people of Israel differently to any other nation should be dismissed out of hand as the bigots they are. We certainly don’t need to prove ourselves to them (nor is there any point in doing so).

But if we wish to end this phenomenon of double-standards by others, then we must stop applying them to ourselves as well.

We would do well to take Soffer’s words to heart, as well as to internalise the messages provided by Arlene Kushner and Kalman Liebskind.

Euro MPs: Don’t Use Border Controls to Fight Terror

December 1, 2015

Euro MPs: Don’t Use Border Controls to Fight Terror, Clarion Project, December 1, 2015

Refugees-riot-police-europe-640_2Hungarian police and immigrants. (Photo: © Reuters)

Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) voted on an amendment to a bill opposing the reintroduction of border controls into Europe to combat terrorism.

Amendment 48 to the ‘Prevention of Radicalization and Recruitment of European Citizen’s bill’ was tabled by the Socialists & Democrats group (S&D).

The amendment adds a new paragraph to the bill, stating that the EU “vehemently believes, in light of the current refugee and migrant crisis in Europe, that Member States must refrain from using any border control measures aimed at fighting terrorism and stopping the travel of suspected terrorists, for immigration control purposes.”

In other words, S&D opposes curbing or controlling immigration to prevent terrorism.

The lawmakers justified their stance highlighting “the risk of such measures being based on arbitrariness and racial or ethnic profiling, which is totally contrary to EU principles and values.”

The amendment was one of three put together, the other two adding more judicial restrictions on separating Islamist extremists from the general population in prisons and collecting evidence against terrorists.

The S&D group is a collation of various left-aligned parties in the European parliament. The group has 190/751 MEPs made up of representatives from each of the 28 European Union countries.

Parties included in the coalition include the Socialist Party in France (12), the Social Democratic Party of Germany (27), the Democratic Party of Italy (30), the Labour Party of the UK (20) and the Spanish Socialist Workers Party (14).

MEPs from anti-immigration parties strongly criticized the amendment.

“After the events of Paris I am astounded that Labour MEPs have voted for these amendments” said Diane James, an MEP for Britain’s UKIP party. “The free movement of people has led to the free movement of jihad and the only way to combat this is for Member States to regain control of their borders immediately.”

PBS discusses the European migrant crisis and fears of terrorist infiltration: